If the drug technology is always ahead of the testing, what is the point of all this? Are there really so few users of THG or whatever else can't be easily detected that the new regime will get steroids out of the game?

How can they set up such Draconian sentences when there are issues like what happened with Mike Morse last year?

Also, where do you weigh-in on Tuesday night's House episode, which discussed a bicyclist who had some different adventures with blood doping, etc?

Rhetorical question here: Why aren't cortizone shots considered to be performance enhancing drugs?? Do these shots not allow players to perform when they otherwise couldn't. Isn't that the ultimate performance enhancement?? If a doctor were to prescribe steroids would a player be exempt from the penalties??

Just wondering.

Hey Will, where does this leave HGH?

I also read that it will be an independent administrator. Are we going to see Olympic quality testing? Or just the same 'ol Walmart pregnancy/'roid/cold sore testing out of a box...

The way I look at is with a big dose of pragmitism. What are the outcomes of taking cortizone? Does it have long-term health effects? Presumably, it does not or it would be banned or made illegal. Steroids are very dangerous and they do have long-term health effects.

With the amphetimine issue, I think a good parellel is with the NBA and marijuana. If you knew that 60% (or some other high percentage) of people were taking something illegal in your office, would you not be wary about testing for it? Whether we like it or not, these are the realities that Stern and Selig are faced with. It may not be right, but that's the way it is.

I am not condoning the use of anything illegal but I can understand where these guys are coming from. It's a serious moral issue, but it's not one that I think we are likely to get concrete answers for, at least from pro sports.

I know why they don't want to touch the amphetimine issue, but when they bring up the b.s. 'for the kids' issue when discussing steroids, I'm reminded that amphetimines are a MUCH more serious issue in my neck of the woods than 'roids are.

1) Amphetamines are included in the new policy, the penalty schedule is less severe, but still gets up to 80 games by third offense.

2) Cortizone is administered by trainers, never possessed or self-administered by players. Also, the prevailing logic is that cortizone simply allows a player to return to their natural level of ability, whereas performance enhancers allow a player to exceed their natural abilities.

1) Thanks for the info. I'd be interested to know what the 'detectable life' of amphetimines are.

2) Logic has no place in this discussion. That being said, ---puts on old guy hat----, Babe Ruth didn't have cortizone, these records are tainted!!

"...whereas performance enhancers allow a player to exceed their natural abilities..."

If the only way you can play is to get a shot of a manufactured substance (cortizone) aren't you exceeding your natural abilities?? If you can't naturally move your neck, doesn't a shot that now allows that range of motion enhancing your performance??

As mentioned above, never mind caffine or ibuprofen etc.

Of course, one could argue that the whole PED discussion is one giant slippery slope, but the conventinal wisdom seems comfortable with the explanation in my previous comment.

The different doctors treating a supposed drug abuser beautifully brought out all sides of the 'steroid' debate.

Anyone else watch?

BTW, Chris put down those Rand books, ok? ;-)

Does this mean that the first positive will be kept a secret? If so, that's too bad. Anyone know more about this?

Low Blow. I may have thought the Fountainhead was the bees knees in 1988 or so, but these days I'm a Lincoln man.

I'm just trying to remind everyone that this steroid issue isn't black and white and that's the performance enhancement problems aren't going away anytime soon.

It's a compelling case for sure. I have a problem differentiating between steroid use and arm surgeries. Of course, there is a difference, the steroid user is trying to transcend his biology while the Kerry Woods of the world are just trying to get back to where they were. The trick here is how do we know surgeries don't make some pitchers better?? Is that fair?? More importantly, isn't the fact that sophisticated surgeries are available in 2005 unfair to Sandy Koufax and his legacy?? If the "steroids are ruining the record book" crowd is to be believed, doesn't it follow that modern medical care, jet travel, superior field conditions, awesome equipment and a million other advances also unlevel the historical playing field??